The administration of psychological instruments that pose questions about depression, anxiety, perception of health or denial is routine in studies of persons with heart disease. Researchers and clinicians have expressed concern that psychological instruments may evoke a physiologic response in patients with heart disease resulting in negative outcomes such as ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. This study was conducted to test differences in physiologic stress response to the administration of psychological instruments, between two groups of subjects currently enrolled in an outpatient cardiac rehabilitation program. 71 subjects completed the study, 41 of which were in the questionnaire group. Saliva samples were obtained at 8pm and 9pm for all subjects. After obtaining the 8pm sample the questionnaire group completed two paper and pencil instruments, the BSI-18 and the Illness Perception Questionnaire. Mean salivary cortisol levels for the questionnaire groups were, 8pm 0.09mcg/dl(+/- 0.04), 9pm 0.08mcg/dl(+/- 0.03). Mean salivary cortisol levels for the saliva only group were, 8pm 0.11 mcg/dl(+/- 0.07), 9pm 0.09mcg/dl(+/- 0.08). Repeated measures ANOVA found a significant decrease in salivary cortisol between 8 and 9 pm between the groups (Wilks' Lambda .937, F 4.650, p.03). There was no interaction between group and time (Wilks' Lambda .995, F .379, p.54). Observed power for the interaction was .09 indicating that a considerably larger sample would be required to find a significant difference if one existed. For this sample, completion of two psychological instruments did not evoke a stress response in subjects with heart disease, nor was there a difference in the change in salivary cortisol by group. Researchers and clinicians can feel confident that the asking persons with heart disease to complete a psychological instrument will not trigger a physiologic response.

Full metadata record

A Randomized Study of the Physiologic Response in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction to the Administration of Psychological Instruments

en_GB

dc.identifier.uri

http://hdl.handle.net/10755/160200

-

dc.description.abstract

<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">A Randomized Study of the Physiologic Response in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction to the Administration of Psychological Instruments</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Midwest Nursing Research Society</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2007</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Cherrington, Candace, PhD, RN</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">Wright State University</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">Miami Valley CON &amp; Health - 160 University Hall, 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, OH, 45435, USA</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">candace.cherrington@wright.edu</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">The administration of psychological instruments that pose questions about depression, anxiety, perception of health or denial is routine in studies of persons with heart disease. Researchers and clinicians have expressed concern that psychological instruments may evoke a physiologic response in patients with heart disease resulting in negative outcomes such as ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. This study was conducted to test differences in physiologic stress response to the administration of psychological instruments, between two groups of subjects currently enrolled in an outpatient cardiac rehabilitation program. 71 subjects completed the study, 41 of which were in the questionnaire group. Saliva samples were obtained at 8pm and 9pm for all subjects. After obtaining the 8pm sample the questionnaire group completed two paper and pencil instruments, the BSI-18 and the Illness Perception Questionnaire. Mean salivary cortisol levels for the questionnaire groups were, 8pm 0.09mcg/dl(+/- 0.04), 9pm 0.08mcg/dl(+/- 0.03). Mean salivary cortisol levels for the saliva only group were, 8pm 0.11 mcg/dl(+/- 0.07), 9pm 0.09mcg/dl(+/- 0.08). Repeated measures ANOVA found a significant decrease in salivary cortisol between 8 and 9 pm between the groups (Wilks' Lambda .937, F 4.650, p.03). There was no interaction between group and time (Wilks' Lambda .995, F .379, p.54). Observed power for the interaction was .09 indicating that a considerably larger sample would be required to find a significant difference if one existed. For this sample, completion of two psychological instruments did not evoke a stress response in subjects with heart disease, nor was there a difference in the change in salivary cortisol by group. Researchers and clinicians can feel confident that the asking persons with heart disease to complete a psychological instrument will not trigger a physiologic response.</td></tr></table>

en_GB

dc.date.available

2011-10-26T22:43:11Z

-

dc.date.issued

2011-10-17

en_GB

dc.date.accessioned

2011-10-26T22:43:11Z

-

dc.description.sponsorship

Midwest Nursing Research Society

en_GB

All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.